Van Tran v. Roden, 847 F.3d 44

In 1991 five people were executed in a Boston Chinatown gambling club; Tran and Tham were later indicted and extradited from Hong Kong; both convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder in a 2005 joint trial.
The Commonwealth introduced copies of a United Airlines passenger manifest and a ticket inquiry showing names (Wah Tran, Nam The Tham, Hung Tien Pham) and that the tickets were purchased together; documents were provided to police in 1991 by an unidentified United employee.
United’s Boston business manager, David Contarino (employed by United in 1999, not in 1991), authenticated the documents at trial, testifying they resembled ordinary United business records and that United maintained such records in the regular course of business.
Tran and Tham objected that the documents were improperly authenticated, inadmissible hearsay, and violated their Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights because (a) the records were testimonial or offered for their truth, and (b) they had no opportunity to confront the declarant(s) who created or verified the records.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held the records were non‑testimonial business records admitted for a non‑hearsay purpose (to show statements were made and that the named persons held themselves out as those passengers) and thus no Confrontation Clause violation occurred; the district court and this panel affirmed on habeas review under AEDPA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of United manifest and ticket inquiry violated the Sixth Amendment because the documents were testimonial or offered for their truth	Tran: records were used to prove he boarded the flight; he was denied ability to confront a witness who could verify identity procedures and the names' accuracy	Commonwealth/SJC: documents were standard business records, created for administration not for prosecution, and were offered for a non‑hearsay purpose; Contarino’s testimony sufficed to authenticate	Court: Records were non‑testimonial business records; no Confrontation Clause violation; state court decision not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent
Whether lack of testimony from the actual preparer/producer (chain of custody/authentication) violated confrontation or required exclusion	Tham: he was entitled to confront the person who produced the documents; unknown origin could render documents testimonial or unreliable	Commonwealth/SJC: gaps about origin go to weight/authenticity, not automatically to confrontation; production to police does not make ordinary business records testimonial	Court: Authentication concerns go to weight; absence of preparer did not render records testimonial or require exclusion; SJC’s ruling reasonable under AEDPA

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statements trigger Confrontation Clause)
Meléndez–Díaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (business records generally non‑testimonial when created for administrative purposes)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (limits on surrogate testimony for another's testimonial statements)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (testimonial v. nontestimonial statements and primary purpose test)
Linton v. Saba, 812 F.3d 112 (AEDPA standard for unreasonable application review)
United States v. Cameron, 699 F.3d 621 (1st Cir.) (actor’s creation for the primary purpose of law‑enforcement referral can render business‑like reports testimonial)
United States v. Fujii, 301 F.3d 535 (7th Cir.) (check‑in/reservation records admissible as business records despite being printed at agency request)